PDA

View Full Version : Details on DISNEYS' Winnie the Pooh 3D Series (Christopher Robin has been recasted)


RobertoOrtiz
12-08-2005, 12:50 PM
Quote:
"Guess who's coming for honey? As part of a barrel-full of Winnie the Pooh anniversary events, Disney is working on a new animated series that will replace Christopher Robin with a 6-year-old girl."

>>LINK<< (http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2005-12-06-winnie-the-pooh_x.htm)


-R

urgaffel
12-08-2005, 12:59 PM
What the hell...?

Reepoman
12-08-2005, 01:06 PM
I suppose they have to try and breath new life into the wood. It has been running for 80 years if I read correctly. Either way i'm sure my 2 year old will still love it :thumbsup:

paulrus
12-08-2005, 01:26 PM
Just when I thought Disney couldn't suck any more they kill Christopher Robin...

At least they didn't turn Pooh "EXTREME" like they did with the Looney Tunes (though I bet at least one suit made the suggestion - "Pooh-chy the Bear - yeah, he's radical!")

arvid
12-08-2005, 03:49 PM
:D

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/s/r/srr120/poochie.gif

deadplant155
12-08-2005, 04:23 PM
maybe it's been going for 80 years without changing because it works....

well, i just hope they don't ruin it, there is of course the slight chance that this will be an improvement, and that the creators actually care more about preserving the spirit of the original show than they do about making an easy buck by changing things up to be more 'hip with the times' and whatnot.

Razr
12-08-2005, 04:23 PM
What a travesty. Nevermind Winnie the Pooh is not a Disney creation but now it's being defiled.

JamesMK
12-08-2005, 05:17 PM
I would also suggest replacing Pooh with Winnie the Squirrel (he can have that wonderful speedy voice like Chip n Dale), and make Kanga and Roo into Wal and Russ. Tigger would work better as a duck perhaps, and then there's this dull donkey... I think Yee-Haw the zebra should do the trick.


.

heavyness
12-08-2005, 06:14 PM
http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2005/12/07/inside-pooh.jpg

Disney's answer to Dora the Explorer? why try to fix something that isn't broken?

slaughters
12-08-2005, 06:26 PM
...they kill Christopher Robin...That reminds me of this old George Carlin bit : http://www.stansight.com/sound/George%20Carlin%20-%20Pooh%20Goes%20Ape%20Shit.wma

chrisWhite
12-08-2005, 07:36 PM
Wait, so now I was named after a girl? Great :eek:

mushroomgod
12-08-2005, 07:45 PM
A.A. Milne would be rolling in his grave


Just when I thought Disney couldn't suck any more they kill Christopher Robin...
to late...the real Christopher Robin died a few years ago...mind you I wouldnt put anything past disney

bentllama
12-08-2005, 08:04 PM
i heard that Chris Robin was a yiffer and the rest of the 100 Acre gang did not feel comfortable around him anymore.

ArtisticVisions
12-08-2005, 10:41 PM
http://images.usatoday.com/life/_photos/2005/12/07/inside-pooh.jpg
Ok... what the f***? :surprised

... "The last thing we want to be is the ones who brought the franchise down."
Then don't try and change a classic, toots. :curious:

ReBootedOne
12-09-2005, 01:29 AM
...what the frig? This is a travesty... And that photo looks gawdawful...

-eric

EpShot
12-09-2005, 02:19 AM
lets have a look at the orignal, sall we?
http://www.vegalleries.com/dis-opc/62poo.jpg

need I say anything more?

gunslingerblack
12-09-2005, 02:24 AM
alright....gay!


i guess the only feasible thing they could do is make this christopher robins daughter....if they are so worried about sucking in an older audience

btw how does that work exactly, what kind of audience r we trying to suck in by replacing christopher robin with a young girl?

edit: this is just as bad as bambi 2

xino
12-09-2005, 03:41 AM
I hate to say it, but was there anything in the original that didn't make Mr. Robin out to be a female? I mean, his voice, his mannerisms, the acting of the character; it all seemed fairly feminine to me. In fact when I was a kid, I didn't even know it was a guy until they gave his name. And that didn't mean an entire lot to this American viewer because Christopher Robin seemed so female that I just thought it was normal for English parents to give their girls American guy names.

Now, sarcasm aside, I don't see how this will do anything to the "series/legacy". There isn't a single storyline that couldn't be done by a female and I don't remember them stating that this will be just a rehash of the old stories. I really don't see why people are complaining about it.

Mr. Robin was a pansy to begin with. At least now they finally "outted" him. ;)

Enayla
12-09-2005, 04:19 AM
Sigh.

Thing with the original was… here we have this little, sweet kid who was a little different from how we expect boys to be. He wasn't a pansy, he was just a dreamer, gentle, sensitive and wonderful. Changing this unique and lovely boy into a girl sort of sends the message that it's not okay for boys to be this way. One of the few 'gentle' male characters out there gets replaced with a girl. How about that, huh.

Will the only boy characters be the ones with a ton of attitude and slingshots, or the slightly nerdy ones? What about the boys that actually are like Christopher Robin?

I hope they change their minds. It's not about whether or not the stories could be done with a female character playing the part. Pippi Långstrump (Pipi Longstocking in English?) could have been a guy instead, but it would have killed the entire thing. She was a girl who wouldn't act like a typical girl.

Ordibble-Plop
12-09-2005, 04:52 AM
"...these timeless characters really needed a breath of fresh air..."

Isn't that a contradiction?

What they really mean is, we have the old set-up already, so we wanted to try something new to see if it would enable us to sell more plastic crap and the odd pillow case or two.

But don't worry, "Christopher Robin is still out there in the woods, playing."

I can just picture him, wandering about the woods lonely now that his old friends have abandoned him for the new kid.

Pathos amongst the whimsy.

secretasianman
12-09-2005, 05:14 AM
first disney was trying to compete with other 3d companies with doing away with their 2d people and replacing them with 3d people. wich saves them money and time bc it takes them less time and people. but their 3d artists are no where near as talented as alot fo the other people in other studios.

they killed off a really good thing, and now trying to change a cartoon like this.

these people are a disgrace to disney and what the company was.

Per-Anders
12-09-2005, 05:24 AM
lets have a look at the orignal, sall we?

heh, nice but not the original, here's an original AA Milne illustration as in the books themselves -

http://www.peranders.com/general/winnie.jpg

and here's the actual real original item, A.A.Milne and his son

http://www.peranders.com/general/milnechristopher.jpg

It's pathetic that they feel the need to emasculate a little child and a part of so many peoples childhoods in the name of their sickening progress.
http://www.peranders.com/general/winni.jpg

EpShot
12-09-2005, 05:30 AM
i ment animations ;)

aes
12-10-2005, 02:13 AM
Good point Enayla!


Thing is, I've always hated Disney's Pooh. In the books he is simple, uncomplicated, Tao like. In the cartoon's he's just dumb and unintelligent.

-Alonso

JeroenDStout
12-10-2005, 02:38 AM
heh, nice but not the original, here's an original AA Milne illustration as in the books themselves -

http://www.peranders.com/general/winnie.jpg

I grew up on that! Left the Disney version behind for the original Pooh.. ahhh, those were the days. A real little bear without a silly littl' red .. thing. And a cut little boy who was a dreamer.

BRING IN THE TOMBOY GIRLS! WOOOohhoo!

Now, this reaches whole new levels of stupidity. It seems these days that in order to be cool there have to be tomboy girls and avoid emotional boys at all costs. Sigh. Disney, I am utterly disgusted and if it weren't for the fact that a friend of mine has a job at one of your parks I wish you went bankrupt in each and every way it is possible to go bankrupt. Seriously. This has been going on long enough.



... No, I mean it, stop waiting for my 'and now without sarcasm' line.

I hope they change their minds. It's not about whether or not the stories could be done with a female character playing the part. Pippi Långstrump (Pipi Longstocking in English?) could have been a guy instead, but it would have killed the entire thing. She was a girl who wouldn't act like a typical girl.
And there's another part of my childhood! Ahh, a dreamy boy and a hyperactive wild over-the-top girl who wasn't a tomboy. Those were the days.

:)

L.Rawlins
12-10-2005, 03:40 PM
Hands up if you've played 'Pooh Sticks' over the actual bridge...

:wavey:

LeeGriggs
12-10-2005, 03:57 PM
what next, a guest appearance from the mutant ninja turtles?! :rolleyes:

JeroenDStout
12-10-2005, 06:52 PM
Hands up if you've played 'Pooh Sticks' over the actual bridge...

:wavey:
:wavey: Yes. That game is the mother of all.

Alexandrite
12-11-2005, 04:16 AM
Winnie the Pooh himself put it best: "These are Definitely the Wrong Sort of Bees! Quite the wrong sort. So I should think they would make the wrong sort of honey, shouldn't you?"

Heh, I stumbled upon a link to the article, then headed over to these forums, because of course, they'd be abuzz with this too. Pardon the pun. ;)
Anyhow. I find this so very wrong. The real Christopher Robin grows up and passes away, and only a few years later, his character, and in a way, the memory of him as a boy, is written out of the very story that his father wrote for him and his little toy bear?? Is nothing sacred :(

Enayla hit the nail on the head as always, also, with her words.

Sure, Disney had already made a TV series that was unrelated to the original story. But I don't think anyone took it too seriously, or that it was much of a conflict with the original, because it still featured the original beloved characters. Sure, no child wants a story he/she loves, to end - and so many of us grew up with the original Winnie the Pooh... and so many of us smiled, sighed, and closed the much-loved and re-read book on the last pages, when we finally realized what it meant for Christopher Robin to leave the Hundred-Acre Wood forest, and for him to wander off with his little bear, away from the land of his childhood, away from us. We grew up along with these characters, and there came a point where all of us realized that we had to leave the Hundred-Acre Wood, too, that we grew up like Christopher Robin grew up. And we imagine that the little boy and his bear still play together, somewhere, just like we played with Pooh and his friends in our imaginations when we were children.

This story had closure, a moment of nostalgia and a bit of sadness at the ending, but that's where it had to end. Even Disney's later additions could have been taken as, stories that could have happened between when we were introduced to Pooh, and when we left him behind. And I REALLY don't think any of the characters were meant to be replaced, re-written! They didn't need "a breath of fresh air". They existed, they made us smile as children, they will make our children smile too, but this story has worked well for 80 years. Why can't beautiful stories like this simply be left alone. :(

Gibbo69
12-11-2005, 05:05 AM
I grew up reading winnie the pooh (Edward Bear)

I have been to the hundred acre woods and played pooh sticks on the real bridge and wandered around the area in complete happiness. There is even a book shop in London where you can buy original illustrations of Pooh and Christopher Robin.

Ah so many memories of sitting by the fire reading about Pooh, Tiger, Piglet, Roo and friends, I remember ee aw (the slightly depresed donkey) loosing his tail and getting a burst red ballon for his birthday, and all the morals in the stories etc.

And now Disney execs are going to kill this institution by making Christopher more politicaly correct.

This Is Wrong, wrong,wrong. tra la la

Thr35h0ld
12-11-2005, 05:28 AM
Gosh. That's a real kick in the balls to me.
I grew up going to an old bridge with Dad playing Pooh-sticks, had at least two Winnie the Pooh stuffed bears, just like most other kids my age. Watched the original movies, too. I forget exactly how many there were. They did diverge a little from the original story, breaking that so-called fourth wall a few times, but whatever. It was tolerable compared to this. Even Gopher, who's "not in the books, you know."
I was a little annoyed with "Grand Adventure," as I regarded it as rewriting history. But at least that really kinda wrenched at my small and rather cynical heart like way the original storyline did, when you find out Christopher Robin is growing up and going to school. We all knew it was going to mean that he left Pooh more and more often in the window sill.
Now, it's like Eisner or whoever runs that dungheap is taking money to figuratively take a piss on my childhood. When I have kids, they're going to get the straight story at bedtime. I've got the original 4 books, Winnie the Pooh, The House at Pooh Corner, When We Were Very Young, and Now We Are Six.
I just have this profound disrespect for morons like this who try to be bold and adventurous and just wind up fixing what's not broken. Fixing it like a housepet. We've seen it with so many other things... Kingdom Hearts, for the love of money.
It's just a shame.
A real crying shame.
It's getting me emotional,
and that's pretty darnn hard to do.

xino
12-11-2005, 06:32 AM
ee aw (the slightly depresed donkey)

Eyeore I think.

And now Disney execs are going to kill this institution by making Christopher more politicaly correct.

Why everyone thinks this, I have no idea. At no point during the article does anyone say it's being "rewritten". It's just more Pooh with Christopher Robin. They are in fact not redoing anything. The kid died. Does that suddenly mean they shouldn't make more stories about the best characters of the series and bring in younger kids? No. I find it sad that my kids most likely won't grow up with the classic cartoons that I myself watched. I can't see how anyone can actually be against this when they're not doing anything to make the originals less worthy. They're getting more people into the Pooh stories. How is that a bad thing.

On the same note, I don't see a single person saying how much Minnie Mouse, Daisy, and Pluto and tons of other Disney characters suck. They had nothing to do with the originals and they brought them in to get a larger audience.

Maybe it's just me, but I love the fact that newer generations will grow up with the same characters and different stories. They don't hurt the original, they only build upon it. I guess I just don't hate everything like some people seem to around here. For a forum about cg, art, and animation, it's SAD how many people hate anything new. :shrug:

xino
12-11-2005, 06:34 AM
Fixing it like a housepet.

Obviously you've never had a male cat or dog "mark" their territory or had a female cat or dog go into heat. There are reasons why they get fixed, not to mention stopping people from having to put to "sleep" unwanted puppies and kittens at local animal shelters.

Kingdom Hearts, for the love of money.
It's just a shame.
A real crying shame.
It's getting me emotional,
and that's pretty darnn hard to do.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but pretty much everyone who played Kingdom Hearts loved it. I don't see how that game was anything but a success in terms of gameplay, ingenuity, storyline, graphics, characters, sales figures, and more. The game itself didn't "destroy" any of the mythos surrounding any of these characters at all.

Alexandrite
12-11-2005, 06:53 AM
Hmmm, interesting point, xino. but i guess a question back to you is, why do we need more? A child growing up in the 2000s who reads his first Winnie the Pooh book or watches a Disney Pooh movie for the first time - how does his experience of meeting everyone's beloved bear for the first time in his/her life differ somehow from your own, or mine, or anyone's? I'm just not sure why we need the story to continue at all and especially in this direction? The child would go through all the same phases of becoming acquainted with the story as we did as children, reading/watching it. As Christopher himself probably did as a child when his father wrote the story. And inevitably, the story will have to end somewhere, with Christopher leaving the Hundred-Acre-Wood, as the children reading/watching will inevitably do. I realize lots of us are blurring the lines here between what is the original and what is the Disney adaptation. But to a child, it's still the very same story, they wouldn't know the difference until they got older? With this continuation I think the story is now becoming muddled, confused, the original premise and the original conclusion - and the original importance of the Christopher Robin character - is being lost in the new development.

It looks like political correctness or at least the attempt at such, is at play here in their decision to bring in this girl character. However, being a girl, I never felt in any way "left out" of the Pooh story to begin with, even though Pooh's best friend was a boy. IMHO, I'm reading the announcement of the new character being brought in as them saying, "Pooh must have both a boy and a girl friend to play with so no one feels left out". (But from experience, the idea simply never entered into my mind as a child, it's only the adults that try to impose these messages on children... left out? what?) And as Enayla pointed out, dig a little deeper and you find another uncomfortable message, whether the current people watching over the project realize it or not. Christopher Robin, as portrayed in the book and original animation, could be any child's - or stuffed animal's - friend regardless of his gender.

I still think that developing the story in this way is completely unnecessary, and fixing what is not broken, isn't needed...

and damn, i need to type less. :)

BillB
12-11-2005, 07:22 AM
"The gamble could sweeten the pot of a company that already brings in $1 billion annually from Pooh merchandise"

Wasn't there a fairytale about a goose that laid golden eggs? Now if only I could remember the moral. Let me think...

BillB
12-11-2005, 07:31 AM
For a forum about cg, art, and animation, it's SAD how many people hate anything new. :shrug:
Are you kidding? We LOVE new. This isn't new. This is bastardising a well loved institution to wring a few more bucks out of it. It's got nothing to do with art, and everything to do with focus groups and marketing driods. Midas would be proud.

LeeGriggs
12-11-2005, 03:02 PM
'cowabunga Pooh!'

xino
12-11-2005, 07:39 PM
Are you kidding? We LOVE new. This isn't new. This is bastardising a well loved institution to wring a few more bucks out of it. It's got nothing to do with art, and everything to do with focus groups and marketing driods. Midas would be proud.

Really? Then tell me where exactly does it say they're "redoing/bastardizing" anything? Just because some people think it's about money, doesn't make it true. I guess you read what you want to from these articles, no matter how much is "read" between the lines. I just don't get how them wanting to continue the Pooh stories suddenly means they're only doing it for the money. With Disney continuing the stories for new generations with a new character, I have to ask this, did anyone actually care about Christopher Robin to begin with or did it happen when they said that he won't be around anymore? Before you say yes, ask some kids who they like the best out of the series. Go into a toy story and look for the Christopher Robin toys. You'd be extremely hard-pressed to find any Christopher Robin anything (wallpaper, blankets, clothes, dolls, etc). Following the storylines of the originals, the boy died/moved on. A new kid finds the forest and that suddenly means the new stories will suck eh? I personally don't find the correlation at all in that scenario. Christopher Robin has been gone for awhile now and I don't see how that should suddenly stop them from continuing the storylines with the beloved characters. I hardly remember the boy, but I definately remember Eyeore, Rabbit, Roo, Tigger, Pooh, Piglet, et al. The boy had little to do with most of the stories that I remember. He was a second-tier character from my memories and nothing more.

They are not remaking anything. These are apparently new stories. When you type about how much you hate these new ideas, you don't go on and bash other tv series/movies where they introduced new characters. I just find that hypocritical. They aren't changing anything. They're just continuing the stories. I didn't find these kinds of posts anywhere when they created a new cowgirl toy for Toy Story 2. And from I've read, alot of people think that Toy Story 2 was better than the first. Few people complain when Warner Brothers introduced Gossamer into the Bugs Bunny mythos. I don't hear any complaints about Duck Dodgers or Marvin the Martian either. They are just continuations and nothing more. They don't detract at all from the original and merely build upon it. How is it a bad thing that they want more kids to know these stories?

On a side note: I'm not trying to be mean or rude to anyone. If you feel that I am, I'm just being blunt. I certainly don't mean to begrudge anyone.

xino
12-11-2005, 07:49 PM
Hmmm, interesting point, xino. but i guess a question back to you is, why do we need more?

Maybe "we" don't need more. But I would rather be 10 more stories for my kids to watch than only 5. I know that I hated (with a passion I might add) when my favorite tv show/cartoon ended when I was a child. Hell I still miss Dark Angel, Firefly, Boomtown, Titus, and I'll be missing Alias come next season. Children should be given a great "library" of stories to draw from. If the kids don't like them, that's quite alright. But don't tell me that telling your kid(s) "Sorry, there aren't anymore Pooh movies made." won't put a frown on their face or tears in their eyes when they actually want more of them. That's one of the great things about Warner Brothers and the Bugs mythos. They can continue their stories indefinately and my kids, their kids, and their kids will get to enjoy such classic characters like I did and still do. For some reason when continuation of the sotries and characters from the Disney world comes up, people gripe and complain about how their "destroying" their childhood, yet they like that Bugs has gone on for over 40 years.

And I hate to play the devil's advocate, but these aren't your stories. They are theirs. From the artistic side of things, I wouldn't dare to tell Picasso he couldn't do anymore abstracts from his blue period because they *might* pale in comparison to his earlier works. Live and let live I say. If the new series is as bad as a few people say, Disney will feel it in their pocketbooks and won't hurt a single person here. Of course this is the same way I feel about Lucas. Star Wars is his story. If he wants to tweak something, who are we to say he can't?

JeroenDStout
12-11-2005, 08:24 PM
They're getting more people into the Pooh stories. How is that a bad thing.
Uhm. This isn't actual Pooh anymore. This is a mutilation of their own spin-off Pooh cartoons, really. Probably featuring even less intelligent topics, too.

ArtisticVisions
12-11-2005, 09:56 PM
With Disney continuing the stories for new generations with a new character, I have to ask this, did anyone actually care about Christopher Robin to begin with or did it happen when they said that he won't be around anymore? Before you say yes, ask some kids who they like the best out of the series. Go into a toy story and look for the Christopher Robin toys. You'd be extremely hard-pressed to find any Christopher Robin anything (wallpaper, blankets, clothes, dolls, etc). Following the storylines of the originals, the boy died/moved on. A new kid finds the forest and that suddenly means the new stories will suck eh? I personally don't find the correlation at all in that scenario. Christopher Robin has been gone for awhile now and I don't see how that should suddenly stop them from continuing the storylines with the beloved characters. I hardly remember the boy, but I definately remember Eyeore, Rabbit, Roo, Tigger, Pooh, Piglet, et al. The boy had little to do with most of the stories that I remember. He was a second-tier character from my memories and nothing more.[/size][/size]
1. Of course you wouldn't find Chistopher Robin toy or merchandise in a store, because from a marketing standpoint he's not a sellable character. (who would want a toy of a little human boy when there's a Pooh Bear and Tigger to make money off of?)

2. The real boy who was the basis of the Chistopher Robin character died, not the character himself. There is absolutely no reason to replace a fictional character just because the real-world equivelent doesn't exist anymore.

3. "The boy had little to do with most of the stories"? He was the entire reason for the stories. :curious:

And I hate to play the devil's advocate, but these aren't your stories. They are theirs. From the artistic side of things, I wouldn't dare to tell Picasso he couldn't do anymore abstracts from his blue period because they *might* pale in comparison to his earlier works. Live and let live I say. If the new series is as bad as a few people say, Disney will feel it in their pocketbooks and won't hurt a single person here.
Well, if you want to get really technical about it, the original stories weren't Disney's either - they were originally written by A.A.Milne (Disney just bought the series from the family and proceeded to make buttloads of cash off it the license :rolleyes: ).

That's one of the great things about Warner Brothers and the Bugs mythos. They can continue their stories indefinately and my kids, their kids, and their kids will get to enjoy such classic characters like I did and still do. For some reason when continuation of the sotries and characters from the Disney world comes up, people gripe and complain about how their "destroying" their childhood, yet they like that Bugs has gone on for over 40 years.
I bet you're a fan of Loonatics, aren't ya? :D

ReBootedOne
12-12-2005, 01:52 AM
I bet you're a fan of Loonatics, aren't ya? :D
Don't be silly. Fans of Loonatics are like leprechauns; they're fun to laugh at, but they don't really exist. :D

-eric

xino
12-12-2005, 08:48 AM
I bet you're a fan of Loonatics, aren't ya? :D

How can I hate or like something when I haven't seen it? I can't pass judgement on an entire series when only one episode exists. Also, you apparently don't actually know about "Loonatics" since it's not a rehash in exactly the same way this is not. They are new characters and new storylines. I wish some people would actually read the articles instead of reading forums posts that aren't based on anything but the Forum Topic's title. FYI, I found Tiny Toons almost if not more enjoyable than some of the original Warner Brothers cartoons. For every example you bring up, I can bring them up too. I can't say whether I like it or not, but "Loonatics" has little to do with the original cartoons, you known since they're not based on them at all. People like to forget that fact in their "arguments", much like in this discussion.

2. The real boy who was the basis of the Chistopher Robin character died, not the character himself. There is absolutely no reason to replace a fictional character just because the real-world equivelent doesn't exist anymore.

The sad fact is, if they made new cartoons even with Christopher Robin, people would type about how "terrible" it is that they're just trying to "cash in" on the characters. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. I find that hypocritical. Ever think that perhaps they did studies and figured out that kids today don't like the Christopher Robin character? While you or I may like the older version, we're not exactly the demographic for this and our opinions rarely matter.

3. "The boy had little to do with most of the stories"? He was the entire reason for the stories.

Just because he was the reason for it, didn't make him the best part of the stories. I personally feel he was the weakest character overall. The best Pooh stories have little to nothing to do with the child.

Well, if you want to get really technical about it, the original stories weren't Disney's either - they were originally written by A.A.Milne (Disney just bought the series from the family and proceeded to make buttloads of cash off it the license :rolleyes: ).

That still doesn't change the fact that it's their license now does it? Don't blame Disney because the family sold it to them.

metroeast
12-12-2005, 09:20 AM
You are going to make Christopher Robin leave? Isn't he the reason why they live. They are a part of his imagination. Disney is such a market-driven company. I think that marks the final straw. There is absolutely no more creativity in that company.

I am not crazy about the 3D. I really miss the 2D stuff. The girl looks like she was just thrown in there.

Hey Disney! Do something really cutting edge. Make Christopher Robin a pre-teen goth with pierced ears and a bolt through the nose.

Ever since they scrapped the animation group, Disney has been running on empty. The 3D Mickey's Christmas was the only half way decent thing.

Walt is weeping

In the long run, the kids will show them that they won't like it. It will seem too forced.

Pixero
12-12-2005, 12:08 PM
Its soo sad to see Disney killing one of the greatest childrens book ever.
The sadest thing is that todays/future children wont see the original story as the real thing.
Disney have done it before with baby junglebook and what ever...
There seem to be the idea that when you cant come up with a good story, just create a new character. I think this a bad for the original characters. They get "weaker" which in turn is bad for the value of the "trademark".

I´m a big fan of the good old Disney, but today´s Disney lacks the will to tell a good story.
They seem to only be in it for the money.

By the way I read somewhere that Chistopher (Robin) Milne´s mother wanted a girl and forced him wear girls clothes and long hair.
E. H. Shepard is my favorite illustrator and I think the two original Disney Puh films from the sixties did captured some of the atmosphere even if Disney of cause gave shorts to Chistopher Robin in stead. ;)

P. S. I once even got to hold some of Shepard´s original sketches for Puh at a London Museum. :drool:

LadyMedusa
12-12-2005, 12:59 PM
Guess who's coming for honey? As part of a barrel-full of Winnie the Pooh anniversary events, Disney is working on a new animated series that will replace Christopher Robin with a 6-year-old girl.
Wait.. what?!
Did Christopher Robin('s parens) give his favorite toys to a 6 year old girl?!
I can understan it can be painful for the autors to make an entertaining story based on a person hwo just died. I kind of hope she's his sister or relative of some sort and that they will introduce her a little slowly first... not as if she's always been there and know the toys from before.

By looking at the image, it looks like they are trying to make Winnie the Phoo a more "cool and hip" series... just like they did whit Huey, Dewey and Louie Duck (http://www.lambdapsiphi.com/daft/daft/art/tpagewan.jpg) (pants? saying cool every 5 second... :( and Daisy is a Reporter D:... Ok enough about this) and some of the puppies from 101 Dalmatins...

As for making it in 3D, well, I think that is a good idea.. comparing it to other 3D shows kids see theese days, this will be better quality by far.
Hopefully they will still have a moral

ArtisticVisions
12-12-2005, 02:27 PM
How can I hate or like something when I haven't seen it? I can't pass judgement on an entire series when only one episode exists. Also, you apparently don't actually know about "Loonatics" since it's not a rehash in exactly the same way this is not. They are new characters and new storylines. I wish some people would actually read the articles instead of reading forums posts that aren't based on anything but the Forum Topic's title. FYI, I found Tiny Toons almost if not more enjoyable than some of the original Warner Brothers cartoons. For every example you bring up, I can bring them up too. I can't say whether I like it or not, but "Loonatics" has little to do with the original cartoons, you known since they're not based on them at all. People like to forget that fact in their "arguments", much like in this discussion.
Uh... I was being sarcastic if you couldn't tell :rolleyes: (kinda the reason why smilies were invented).

The sad fact is, if they made new cartoons even with Christopher Robin, people would type about how "terrible" it is that they're just trying to "cash in" on the characters. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. I find that hypocritical. Ever think that perhaps they did studies and figured out that kids today don't like the Christopher Robin character? While you or I may like the older version, we're not exactly the demographic for this and our opinions rarely matter.
No, I don't believe Disney conducted studies on whether or not kids today care about Christopher Robin, because I don't give them enough credit to even do that (like a lot of people, I've had my faith in Disney shot to hell).
Also, why wouldn't kids like Chistopher Robin now? :shrug:

Just because he was the reason for it, didn't make him the best part of the stories. I personally feel he was the weakest character overall. The best Pooh stories have little to nothing to do with the child.
So then what were the best Pooh stories? :hmm:


On a seperate note, the current quality of the show looks kinda poor in my opinion, but I wouldn't mind seeing Pooh in 3D. (in contrast, I thought Square-Enix did a fantastic job translating Pooh, Tigger, and the others in 3D in Kingdom Hearts :drool: )

xino
12-12-2005, 07:33 PM
Uh... I was being sarcastic if you couldn't tell :rolleyes: (kinda the reason why smilies were invented).

Sarcasm doesn't really work in text and smileys mean nothing.

No, I don't believe Disney conducted studies on whether or not kids today care about Christopher Robin, because I don't give them enough credit to even do that (like a lot of people, I've had my faith in Disney shot to hell).
Also, why wouldn't kids like Chistopher Robin now?

Disney will never get you as aviewer because you already don't like them for whatever reason. So no matter what they do, you would disparage them. They can't win and it starting to sound like a "witchhunt" (for lack of a better term).

Also not every kid kid liked Christopher Robin just because you did. If he was liked well enough, his character would be marketable, which is proven that he is not. That should say everything right there.

Also do you know of any child ever who wanted to see "the CHristopher Robin" movie? I know for a fact I don't. They want to see Pooh and his other forest friends. They only ask to see the "Pooh" movies, not his human friend.

So then what were the best Pooh stories? :hmm:

Anything with Tigger and Eyeore and anything without the damn annoying kid. Even as a child I found myself either leaving the room when he was around or fastforwarding the scene until he left. I felt no emotional attachment to him as a chracter and I fully believe that I am not alone in that sentiment. If I was, there would alot more people here typing about how such a "travesty" this is.

I know I'm looking forward to what they might be able to do with this new direction.

By looking at the image, it looks like they are trying to make Winnie the Phoo a more "cool and hip" series... just like they did whit Huey, Dewey and Louie Duck (pants? saying cool every 5 second... :( and Daisy is a Reporter D:... Ok enough about this) and some of the puppies from 101 Dalmatins...

They will always have to update the characters to make them likable for new viewers. If that wasn't the case, Warner Bros. and Disney would both have legal troubles and protests due to some of the underlying racism in their much older cartoons. Besides, few kids today can relate to some of the older characters and such that were farmers or any other sort of agricultural job. Kids can relate better to a reporter since they see them everyday. And to prove that point, I, still to this day, get asked if I have a horse and wear a 10 gallon hat just because I live in Texas by kids and even adults. Children need something new to relate to or the viewships will die for all of our beloved characters and no one would see them anymore. It's sometimes necessary to update older characters. They did it with Daffy and Duck Dodgers in the 60s. When sci-fi became more main stream, they updated them. :shrug:

ArtisticVisions
12-12-2005, 07:47 PM
Sarcasm doesn't really work in text and smileys mean nothing.
:rolleyes: :shrug: :applause: :argh: :hmm: :cry: :wise: :banghead: :p
... oh well.

Disney will never get you as aviewer because you already don't like them for whatever reason. So no matter what they do, you would disparage them. They can't win and it starting to sound like a "witchhunt" (for lack of a better term).
"Witchhunt"? When in any of my posts did I attack or go after Disney? :shrug:

EvilGnome
12-12-2005, 10:48 PM
Children need something new to relate to or the viewships will die for all of our beloved characters and no one would see them anymore.

Like the beloved Christopher Robin has vanished?

It's sometimes necessary to update older characters. They did it with Daffy and Duck Dodgers in the 60s. When sci-fi became more main stream, they updated them. :shrug:

Daffy was *always* Daffy, he was still being Daffy Duck but in different circumstances when he was "Duck Dodgers".(as Porky was still Porky when being Daffy's loyal "Space Cadet")

The Looney Tunes Characters often played different parts like an ensemble of actors.

As to the loss of Christopher Robin, it's a dilution of the original(literary) concept. It will be interesting to see if they can make the change any more relevant than just a change for the sake of it.

xino
12-13-2005, 04:55 AM
"Witchhunt"? When in any of my posts did I attack or go after Disney? :shrug:

You yourself said you would never trust Disney again. I also used the term "witch hunt" for lack of a better term. You have stated several times how much Disney "sucks" now though.

Like the beloved Christopher Robin has vanished?

He never was that "beloved". Read above to see why I say that.

Daffy was *always* Daffy, he was still being Daffy Duck but in different circumstances when he was "Duck Dodgers".(as Porky was still Porky when being Daffy's loyal "Space Cadet")

The Looney Tunes Characters often played different parts like an ensemble of actors.

Yes I know, but they were still updates to get more viewers in the 60s. These will still be the same favorite characters we all know and love, just without Christopher Robin. None of the history or characters will be changed apparently. Just the addition of a new character and the loss of a non-marketable character. I don't see the down-side myself.

It will be interesting to see if they can make the change any more relevant than just a change for the sake of it.

At least you have a somewhat open mind about the new direction.

LadyMedusa
12-13-2005, 09:32 AM
They will always have to update the characters to make them likable for new viewers. If that wasn't the case, Warner Bros. and Disney would both have legal troubles and protests due to some of the underlying racism in their much older cartoons. Besides, few kids today can relate to some of the older characters and such that were farmers or any other sort of agricultural job. Kids can relate better to a reporter since they see them everyday.
What did Daisy do before she got a job as a reporter? Why does her new character evolve arond her being a reporter?

I'm ok whit Goofy getting a son who's also all "Look I'm cool" but Huey, Dewey and Louie's new dialogues are.. how the heck do they relate to todays kids?!

Huey: I godda' look cool for the ball tonighy!
Dewey: Oh, Cool!
Louie: Are ye' going out whit that cool girl? How mega Cool!
*Huey polishes his eye whit a sharp object*
Dewey and Louie: ewww... Cool
Louie: Now do I look cool
Dewey and Louie: You look mega cool!

Pesonally I've never heard a kid talk like that.

Why do they have to change the old characters so drastically? Isn't it better to make new characters for a new series?
If Tigger becomes more careful and less hyper.. he's not Tigger anymore, he's an evil Tigger-Clone.. I hope they don't change him...
what I'm saying is, I'm ok whit changes, aslong as they don't change theyr personality so much that they could aswell be new characters instead, and I don't think I'm alone whit this.
Why does the comics still sell so well when they use the old personalities in new stories?

Did you guys hear that Winnie might also get a girlfriend?

Nichod
12-13-2005, 10:39 AM
Personally I don't think Disney gives a crap what 10-15 people say on a forum online. With that in mind..


You are going to make Christopher Robin leave? Isn't he the reason why they live. They are a part of his imagination. Disney is such a market-driven company. I think that marks the final straw. There is absolutely no more creativity in that company.


This is the only good point that anyone made that shows why its absurd to replace C. Robin. He was after all the one who imagined the characters coming to life. With that in mind. We can perhaps push our own imaginations and envision a little girl dreaming to life these same characters. Characters that perhaps she heard about from someone. Or saw on TV. Or read in a book. See where I'm going? By changing the character it perhaps open the door a little more that any child can imagine there own forest friends. All in all, I don't see it as a bad idea. The classic still exists.

first disney was trying to compete with other 3d companies with doing away with their 2d people and replacing them with 3d people. wich saves them money and time bc it takes them less time and people. but their 3d artists are no where near as talented as alot fo the other people in other studios.

they killed off a really good thing, and now trying to change a cartoon like this.

these people are a disgrace to disney and what the company was.

Ahh. Information from a reliable source? I bet. I'd like to see how many people can create the kind of toon rigs that were used in Chicken Little? I'm sure quite a few talented people on CGtalk could, but the creation of much of the 3D tools, animations, etc that come from Disney are from highly skilled artists. And many are artists that have worked at other studios and have proven their talents there. I'm sick of all the negativity surrounding Disney. Over the past 10 years plus, the Disney Umbrella has produced a large assortment of great films, movies, and animations. Disney did not kill 2D. The industry did. Its lost its popularity. And because it did, Disney decided to follow the industry into 3D. Disney does continue to create films with wonderful stories. And if people would quit overanalyzing everything, and frowning on the past, perhaps they would realize it.

By the way. Its "which" not wich.

ArtisticVisions
12-13-2005, 01:27 PM
You yourself said you would never trust Disney again. I also used the term "witch hunt" for lack of a better term. You have stated several times how much Disney "sucks" now though.
... and now you're putting words in my mouth that were never there to begin with. :curious:

Read my posts carefully: at no point have I said that Disney sucks.
Furthermore, I stated that my faith in Disney was gone - that's doesn't mean that they couldn't regain that trust, providing they did something that I actually agree with and felt passionate about. Until that happens, though... :shrug:

RobertoOrtiz
12-13-2005, 02:06 PM
People...relax,


I understand why this would annoy the heck out of some.
But lets not start 80's style knife fight over this issue.

:)
-R

xino
12-13-2005, 04:48 PM
People...relax,


I understand why this would annoy the heck out of some.
But lets not start 80's style knife fight over this issue.

:)
-R

Damn it! I always wanted to recreate my own real life scene from "A Rebel Without a Cause". :-( You're just no fun man.

I stated that my faith in Disney was gone

I know you never specifically used those words. That's the reason I used the quotation marks in my reply. Anyone can easily infer that you don't like anything Disney has done recently. From that, it's easy to link your thoughts that you are saying (in your own words) that disney "sucks" these days. How anyone can get an optimistic reading from your text is beyond me though. That's the point I was trying to state.

I just think more people should be open minded and try not to pass judgement on something that doesn't even actually exist right now. Would you be so presumptious to tell Leanoardo that his helicopter design was fallible, that Vincent's "The Scream" had a terrible color-scheme, or that Michelangelo's "David" didn't live up to stanards proportions of the male species? If so..... :shrug:

CGTalk Moderation
12-13-2005, 04:48 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.